|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... |
中文下载
Modernized and annotated by William H. Gross www.onthewing.org Mar 2015 – includes Wesley’s 1739 sermon on Free Grace, cross-ref’d.
由威廉·H·格罗斯（William H. Gross）进行现代化改写并注释，www.onthewing.org 2015年3月 – 包含卫斯理（Wesley）1739年关于《白白的恩典》（Free Grace）的讲道，并附有交叉参考。
“Many of my friends, that are strenuous advocates of universal redemption, will immediately be offended.
“我的许多朋友，那些普遍救赎论（universal redemption）的坚定拥护者，将会立刻感到冒犯。
Many that are zealous on the other side will be much rejoiced.
许多在另一方热心的人将会大大欢喜。
They that are lukewarm on both sides, and are carried away with carnal reasoning, will wish this matter had never been brought under debate…
那些在双方之间不冷不热，被属肉体的推理所带走的人，将会希望这事从未被拿来争论……
I heartily pray God to hasten the time for his being clearly enlightened into all the doctrines of divine revelation, that we may thus be closely united in principle and judgment as well as heart and affection.”
我衷心祈求神加速他被清楚地光照、明白神圣启示的所有教义的时间，使我们不仅在心志和情感上，而且在原则和判断上也能紧密联合。”
George Whitefield wrote this letter to John Wesley in 1740, in response to Wesley’s sermon entitled “Free Grace” (also included and cross-referenced in this eBook).
乔治·怀特菲尔德（George Whitefield）于1740年写这封信给约翰·卫斯理（John Wesley），以回应卫斯理题为《白白的恩典》（Free Grace）的讲道（也包含在本书中并附有交叉参考）。
Whitefield believed the issue vital to robust Christianity, and hastened to write from Georgia in the American colonies, to his friend across the sea.
怀特菲尔德认为这个问题对稳固的基督教至关重要，并急忙从美洲殖民地的佐治亚州写信给他远在海外的朋友。
Iain Murray wrote:
伊恩·默里（Iain Murray）写道：
The occasion and background of [Whitefield’s letter to Wesley] requires a few words of explanation.
关于[怀特菲尔德致卫斯理的信]的时机和背景，需要几句话来解释。
From the time of his conversion in 1735, Whitefield had been profoundly conscious of man’s entire depravity, his need of the new birth, and the fact that God can save and God alone.
自从1735年归正以来，怀特菲尔德就深刻意识到人的全然败坏（entire depravity）、重生的必要性，以及唯有神能拯救的事实。
Describing an experience which occurred a few weeks after his conversion, he wrote: “About this time God was pleased to enlighten my soul, and bring me into the knowledge of His free grace . . .”
在描述他归正几周后发生的一次经历时，他写道：“大约在这个时候，神乐意光照我的灵魂，带我进入对祂白白恩典的认识……”
Strengthened by his reading of the Scriptures, the Reformers and the Puritans, Whitefield gradually grasped the great related chain of truths revealed in the New Testament—the Father’s electing love, Christ’s substitutionary death on behalf of those whom the Father had given Him, and the Spirit’s infallible work in bringing to salvation those for whom it was appointed.
藉着阅读圣经、宗教改革家和清教徒的著作而得着坚固，怀特菲尔德逐渐掌握了新约中所启示的一系列相关真理——圣父拣选的爱，基督代替那些父所赐给祂的人受死，以及圣灵在带领那些被定为得救之人进入救恩时的无误工作。
These doctrines of “free grace” were the essential theology of his ministry from the very first and consequently the theology of the movement which began under his preaching in 1737.
这些“白白恩典”的教义从一开始就是他事工的核心神学，因此也是1737年在他的讲道下开始的那场运动的神学。
When Whitefield returned to England at the end of 1738, after his first visit to America, he found that the awakening in London had been furthered by the conversion and subsequent ministry of the Wesleys.
当怀特菲尔德于1738年底结束他对美洲的首次访问回到英国时，他发现伦敦的觉醒运动因着卫斯理兄弟的归正和随后的事工而得到了推进。
Immediately they began to work together.
他们立刻开始同工。
Under Whitefield’s preaching the revival spread to Bristol and the West country in February and March 1739, and when he left that area at the beginning of April 1739, John Wesley was given the oversight of the work.
在怀特菲尔德的讲道下，复兴于1739年2月和3月蔓延至布里斯托尔（Bristol）和西部地区，当他在1739年4月初离开该地区时，约翰·卫斯理被赋予了监督这项工作的职责。
But before three months had elapsed it began to be evident that there had not been the same doctrinal development in the Wesleys on all points mentioned above.
但不到三个月，情况就开始显明，卫斯理兄弟在上述所有要点上并没有同样的神学发展。
The fact is that while John Wesley had at his conversion in May 1738 accepted evangelical views on sin, faith, and the re-birth, he had at the same time retained his pre-conversion opinions on the doctrines of predestination and the extent of the atonement.
事实是，虽然约翰·卫斯理在1738年5月归正时接受了关于罪、信心和重生的福音派观点，但他同时也保留了他归正前关于预定论和赎罪范围的观点。
As the religious influences which had moulded Wesley prior to his conversion were High Anglican, it is not surprising that these opinions were Arminian and not orthodox.[2]
由于在归正前塑造卫斯理的宗教影响是高派圣公会（High Anglican），这些观点属于亚米念主义（Arminian）而非正统，这就不足为奇了。[2]
His views on these points were not part of his new evangelical experience but arose, as Howell Harris declared to him, “from the prejudices of your education, your books, your companions, and the remains of your carnal reason.”[3]
他在这些点上的观点并非他新福音经历的一部分，而是正如豪威尔·哈里斯（Howell Harris）向他宣称的那样，源于“你受教育的偏见、你的书籍、你的同伴，以及你属肉体理性的残留。”[3]
The first hint that this doctrinal difference might lead to serious results occurs in a letter of Whitefield’s to Wesley on June 25, 1739:
这一神学分歧可能导致严重后果的最初迹象出现在怀特菲尔德于1739年6月25日写给卫斯理的一封信中：
“I hear, honoured sir, you are about to print a sermon on predestination.
“尊敬的先生，我听说您正准备印发一篇关于预定论的讲道。
It shocks me to think of it; what will be the consequences but controversy?
想到这一点令我震惊；除了争议还能有什么后果呢？
If people ask me my opinion, what shall I do?
如果人们问我的意见，我该怎么办？
I have a critical part to act, God enable me to behave aright!
我有关键的角色要扮演，愿神使我行事端正！
Silence on both sides will be best.
双方保持沉默将是最好的。
It is noised abroad already, that there is a division between you and me.
外面已经有传言说，您和我之间有了分裂。
Oh, my heart within me is grieved I . . . “[4]
噢，我里面的心为此忧伤……”[4]
On July 2, 1739, Whitefield wrote further to Wesley on this subject, terminating his letter with another appeal:
1739年7月2日，怀特菲尔德就此主题再次写信给卫斯理，并在信末发出了另一个呼吁：
“Dear, honoured sir, if you have any regard for the peace of the church, keep in your sermon on predestination.
“亲爱、尊敬的先生，如果您顾念教会的和平，请保留您的预定论讲道（不要发表）。
But you have cast a lot.[5]
但您已经抽签决定了。[5]
Oh! my heart, in the midst of my body, is like melted wax.
噢！我的心在我里面如蜡熔化。
The Lord direct us all! . . . “[6]
愿主指引我们大家！……”[6]
On Whitefield’s departure from England in August 1739, Wesley immediately published this sermon.
在怀特菲尔德于1739年8月离开英国时，卫斯理立刻发表了这篇讲道。
Entitled “Free Grace,” it professed to be founded upon Romans 8:32, and was printed as a 12 mo. pamphlet in 24 pages.
题为《白白的恩典》，声称基于罗马书8:32，并以12开本的小册子形式印制了24页。
Annexed to it was a hymn by Charles Wesley on Universal Redemption.
附在后面的是查尔斯·卫斯理（Charles Wesley）关于普遍救赎的赞美诗。
It was this sermon which occasioned Whitefield’s reply here reprinted.
正是这篇讲道引发了在此重印的怀特菲尔德的回复。
But it is interesting to note that although Wesley’s sermon was published in August 1739, Whitefield’s reply is dated December 24, 1740, and was not published till early 1741.
但值得注意的是，虽然卫斯理的讲道发表于1739年8月，怀特菲尔德的回复却注明日期为1740年12月24日，且直到1741年初才发表。
The reasons for this delay are probably as follows:
延迟的原因可能如下：
(1) By the correspondence[7] which passed between Whitefield and Wesley in 1740 it is evident that Whitefield longed to avoid an open breach and still hoped that his friend might be brought to a clearer understanding of the truth.
(1) 通过1740年怀特菲尔德与卫斯理之间的通信[7]，很明显怀特菲尔德渴望避免公开决裂，并仍然希望他的朋友能被带入对真理更清晰的理解中。
Such sentences as the following are typical of Whitefield’s attitude: “How would the cause of our common Master suffer by our raising disputes about particular points of doctrines!” . . .
如下的句子典型地反映了怀特菲尔德的态度：“我们若因教义的具体点引发争论，我们共同之主的事业将遭受何等损失啊！”……
“For Christ’s sake, let us not be divided amongst ourselves” . . .
“看在基督的份上，让我们不要彼此分裂”……
“Avoid all disputation. Do not oblige me to preach against you; I had rather die . . .”
“避免一切争辩。不要迫使我讲道反对您；我宁愿死……”
(2) It is evident that while on his second visit to America, Whitefield developed stronger views on the issues which this controversy involved.
(2) 很明显，在他第二次访问美洲期间，怀特菲尔德对这场争议所涉及的问题形成了更坚定的看法。
Before he left England in August 1739, he had been satisfied to counsel “silence” on these doctrines and they were not at that time conspicuous in his preaching.
在1739年8月离开英国之前，他满足于建议在这些教义上保持“沉默”，当时这些教义在他的讲道中并不显著。
As late as March 1740, he wrote to Wesley: “Provoke me to it as much as you please, I intend not to enter the lists of controversy with you on the points wherein we differ . . .”
直到1740年3月，他还写信给卫斯理：“随您怎么激怒我，我不打算就我们分歧的点与您进入争论的行列……”
But before the year had ended Whitefield went back on this decision, the reason apparently being that he had come to see the seriousness of these questions in a new light.
但在那一年结束之前，怀特菲尔德改变了这个决定，原因显然是他以新的眼光看到了这些问题的严重性。
He could thus remain silent no longer.
因此他不能再保持沉默。
On September 25, 1740, he wrote to Wesley: “What a fond conceit is it to cry up perfection, and yet cry down the doctrine of final perseverance.
1740年9月25日，他写信给卫斯理：“高举完全（perfection），却贬低圣徒坚忍（final perseverance）的教义，这是何等荒谬的自负。
But this, and many other absurdities, you will run into, because you will not own election. . . .
但这个，以及许多其他的荒谬，您都会陷入其中，因为您不承认拣选……
O that you would study the covenant of grace! . . .
噢，愿您研读恩典之约！……
O that you would not be too rash and precipitant!
噢，愿您不要太鲁莽和急躁！
If you go on thus, honoured sir, how can I concur with you?
如果您继续这样，尊敬的先生，我怎能与您一致呢？
It is impossible.
这是不可能的。
I must speak what I know. . . .”
我必须说出我所知道的……”
On February 1, 1741, he says; further:”I must preach the gospel of Christ, and that I cannot now do, without speaking of election. . . . “
1741年2月1日，他进一步说：“我必须传讲基督的福音，而我现在若不讲拣选，就无法做到这一点……”
The reasons for Whitefield’s more decided attitude are not hard to find.
怀特菲尔德态度更加坚决的原因不难找到。
Firstly he had, during 1740, made close friendships with such American evangelicals as the Tennents and Jonathan Edwards;[8] through them he was doubtless led into a deeper understanding of Puritan theology and its relevance to evangelism and revivals.
首先，他在1740年期间与坦南特家族（Tennents）和乔纳森·爱德华兹（Jonathan Edwards）等美国福音派人士建立了深厚的友谊；[8] 通过他们，他无疑被引导进入对清教徒神学及其与布道和复兴之关联的更深理解。
He also witnessed the outstanding blessing on their preaching.
他也见证了在他们讲道上的显著祝福。
Secondly, as the year 1740 advanced, the reports that he received from his friends like [John] Cennick and Howell Harris made it increasingly obvious that harm and divisions were being wrought by the Wesleys’ insistence on their Arminian views.
其次，随着1740年的推进，他从像[约翰]森尼克（[John] Cennick）和豪威尔·哈里斯（Howell Harris）这样的朋友那里收到的报告使得情况日益明显：卫斯理兄弟对亚米念观点的坚持正在造成伤害和分裂。
Wesley’s pamphlet “set the nation disputing.”
卫斯理的小册子“使全国陷入争论”。
As Harris wrote to Wesley: “You grieve God’s people by your opposition to electing love; and many poor souls believe your doctrine simply because you hold it.”
正如哈里斯写给卫斯理的：“您因反对拣选之爱而使神的子民忧伤；许多可怜的灵魂相信您的教义仅仅是因为那是您持守的。”
A situation had developed in which it was imperative that Whitefield should declare his mind and do something to arrest the drift from evangelical orthodoxy.
形势已经发展到怀特菲尔德必须表明心迹并采取行动以阻止偏离福音派正统的地步。
The outcome of Whitefield’s return to England in March 1741 and the publication of his reply to Wesley, was an inevitable separation.
怀特菲尔德于1741年3月回到英国并发表他对卫斯理的回复，其结果是不可避免的分离。
Henceforth the evangelical forces engaged in the revival movement were divided, and a new party of Arminian evangelicals emerged for the first time in British church history.
从此，参与复兴运动的福音派力量分裂了，在英国教会历史上首次出现了一个新的亚米念福音派团体。
Due to the eminence of the Wesleys, this new form of evangelical faith has exerted a widespread influence even down to the present day.
由于卫斯理兄弟的显赫地位，这种新形式的福音派信仰甚至直到今天都产生了广泛的影响。
The contemporary strength of this influence can be judged from the manner in which George Whitefield, with his great predecessors the Reformers and Puritans, have been forgotten;
这种影响在当代的强度可以从乔治·怀特菲尔德及其伟大的前辈宗教改革家和清教徒被遗忘的方式中判断出来；
indeed, it would not be too much to say that Whitefield’s views, as expressed in [his letter to Wesley], would appear to many to be quite alien to the evangelicalism that is commonly believed in today.
事实上，若说怀特菲尔德在[致卫斯理的信]中所表达的观点，对许多人来说似乎与当今普遍信仰的福音派主义截然不同，这并不为过。
Some evangelical writers have sought to minimize the division between Whitefield and Wesley by referring to their “minor differences.”
一些福音派作家试图通过提及他们的“次要分歧”来淡化怀特菲尔德与卫斯理之间的分裂。
An impression is given that Whitefield abandoned the strong conviction he had about Arminianism in 1741;
给人留下的印象是怀特菲尔德在1741年放弃了他对亚米念主义的坚定信念；
in proof of this we are referred to the fact that in 1742 their personal friendship was in measure resumed and that ultimately Wesley even preached Whitefield’s funeral sermon.
为了证明这一点，我们被告知在1742年他们的个人友谊在一定程度上得以恢复，最终卫斯理甚至在怀特菲尔德的葬礼上讲道。
But all this is misleading.
但这完全是误导。
The truth is that Whitefield rightly made a distinction between a difference in judgement and a difference in affection;
事实是，怀特菲尔德正确地区分了判断上的分歧和情感上的分歧；
it was in the former sense that he differed from the Wesleys, and that difference was such that, as Tyerman writes, it “led them to build separate chapels, form separate societies, and pursue, to the end of life, separate lines of action . . . the gulf between Wesley and Whitefield was immense.”[9]
他在前一种意义上与卫斯理兄弟不同，那种分歧如此之大，正如泰尔曼（Tyerman）所写，它“导致他们建立不同的礼拜堂，组建不同的社团，并在余生中追求不同的行动路线……卫斯理与怀特菲尔德之间的鸿沟是巨大的。”[9]
But while their public cooperation was thus seriously disturbed, his personal affection for the Wesleys as Christians was preserved to the last.[10]
但虽然他们的公开合作因此受到严重干扰，但他对作为基督徒的卫斯理兄弟的个人情感一直保持到最后。[10]
In this respect Whitefield teaches us a needful lesson.
在这方面，怀特菲尔德教导了我们一个必要的功课。
Doctrinal differences between believers should never lead to personal antagonism.
信徒之间的教义分歧绝不应导致个人敌对。
Error must be opposed even when held by fellow members of Christ, but if that opposition cannot co-exist with a true love for all saints and a longing for their spiritual prosperity then it does not glorify God nor promote the edification of the Church.
谬误必须被反对，即使是由基督里的同伴持守，但如果这种反对不能与对所有圣徒的真爱和对他们属灵兴盛的渴望共存，那么它既不荣耀神，也不促进教会的造就。
IAIN MURRAY
伊恩·默里
NOTES
注释
- [Whitefield’s letter to Wesley was] added to [the Banner of Truth Trust] edition of The Journals for these reasons:
- [怀特菲尔德致卫斯理的信]被添加到[真理旌旗信托（Banner of Truth Trust）]版的《日记》（The Journals）中，原因如下：
It was written during the period covered in [The Journals] and best illustrates Whitefield’s views on several important points of doctrine.
它写于[《日记》]所涵盖的时期，最能说明怀特菲尔德在几个重要教义点上的观点。
The letter is therefore an important aid to a full understanding of his ministry.
因此，这封信是全面理解他事工的重要辅助。
It explains references in The Journals which would otherwise be obscure and reveals a principal reason why Whitefield returned to England in 1741.
它解释了《日记》中若不加说明便晦涩难懂的提及之处，并揭示了怀特菲尔德于1741年返回英国的一个主要原因。
He feared the results of the controversy which had broken out since his departure.
他担心自他离开后爆发的争议所带来的后果。
The Journals show Whitefield and the Wesleys working in close cooperation.
《日记》显示怀特菲尔德与卫斯理兄弟紧密合作。
It is well known that this cooperation terminated in 1741.
众所周知，这种合作于1741年终止。
Without a knowledge of this letter the cause of that momentous separation cannot be rightly understood.
若不了解这封信，就无法正确理解那次重大分离的原因。
Copies of this letter have become extremely scarce and, in view of the contemporary prevalence of the same errors which Whitefield here opposes, it is highly relevant to the present situation. (Return to article body)
这封信的副本已变得极其稀少，鉴于怀特菲尔德在此反对的同样谬误在当代盛行，它与当前形势高度相关。（返回正文）
- The statement of Dr. H. B. Workman is significant: “Whitefield linked the Evangelical movement to Puritanism; Wesley linked it to Laud, for Laud was one of the founders of the Arminian movement.” [The Methodist Times, in the issue commemorating the bicentenary of Whitefield’s birth, December, 1914.]
- H. B. 沃克曼博士（Dr. H. B. Workman）的声明意义重大：“怀特菲尔德将福音派运动与清教主义联系起来；卫斯理将其与劳德（Laud）联系起来，因为劳德是亚米念运动的创始人之一。”[《卫理公会时报》（The Methodist Times），纪念怀特菲尔德诞辰两百周年特刊，1914年12月。]
- The Life and Times of John Wesley. L. Tyerman, vol. 1, p. 315.
- 《约翰·卫斯理的生平与时代》（The Life and Times of John Wesley）。L. 泰尔曼（L. Tyerman），第1卷，第315页。
- Ibid., p. 277.
- 同上，第277页。
- It was Wesley’s practice at this period sometimes to decide on questions of guidance by casting lots.
- 这是卫斯理在此时期的做法，有时通过抽签来决定引导的问题。
- Ibid., p. 313.
- 同上，第313页。
- Tyerman gives lengthy extracts from this correspondence, and the quotations which follow will be found in pp. 313- 322.
- 泰尔曼给出了这些通信的详细摘录，接下来的引文可在第313-322页找到。
- Tyerman’s comments on this fact are interesting [Ibid., p. 312 and Life of Whitefield, vol. 1, pp. 274- 275], but Tyerman needs to be read with care on matters relating to Whitefield’s theology.
- 泰尔曼对此事实的评论很有趣[同上，第312页及《怀特菲尔德生平》（Life of Whitefield），第1卷，第274-275页]，但在涉及怀特菲尔德神学的问题上，阅读泰尔曼需要谨慎。
He is glaringly inconsistent when he says: “Whitefield worked himself into a fume, and wrote his pamphlet in answer to Wesley,” for elsewhere he says, “the spirit breathing in this letter is beautiful”! [Compare Life of Whitefield. vol 1, p. 471, with his Life of Wesley, vol. 1, p. 351.] (Return)
当他说：“怀特菲尔德怒气冲冲，写了小册子回复卫斯理”时，他显然自相矛盾，因为他在别处说，“这封信中流露的精神是美丽的”！[比较《怀特菲尔德生平》第1卷第471页与他的《卫斯理生平》第1卷第351页。]（返回）
- Life of Wesley, vol. 1, pp. 351-352.
- 《卫斯理生平》，第1卷，第351-352页。
- This was no easy thing when it is remembered what provocation Whitefield suffered from John Wesley.
- 当记得怀特菲尔德从约翰·卫斯理那里遭受了怎样的挑衅时，这绝非易事。
On leaving England in 1739 Whitefield was the leader of the awakening; when he returned in 1741 it was to find himself supplanted and Wesley organizing the movement around himself.
1739年离开英国时，怀特菲尔德是觉醒运动的领袖；当他于1741年返回时，却发现自己被取代，卫斯理正围绕自己组织这场运动。
He had cause to write at a later date: “I have been supplanted, despised, censured, maligned, judged by and separated from my nearest, dearest friends.” (Works of George Whitefield, edited by Gillies, vol. 2, p. 466.)
他后来有理由写道：“我被我最亲近、最亲爱的朋友取代、轻视、责难、中伤、论断并与他们分离。”（《乔治·怀特菲尔德文集》，吉利斯（Gillies）编辑，第2卷，第466页。）
But Whitefield was too great to contend for personal prominence.
但怀特菲尔德太伟大了，他不愿为个人显赫而争斗。
The legend of “England before and after Wesley ” began to originate from this time.
“卫斯理前后的英国”这一传说便是从此时开始起源的。